title: [Alleged malpractice claims related to gastrointestinal endoscopy. Analysis of casuistics over 22 years].
abstract: We reviewed the records of patients filing alleged malpractice claims related to gastrointestinal endoscopy to the Professional Responsibility Section of the Medical Council of Catalonia from 1987 to 2009 to determine the frequency of medical errors or substandard care in the practice of this procedure and the result of complaints according to whether malpractice might have been involved or not. There were a total of 66 complaints, 46 (70%) after colonoscopy, 12 (18%) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and eight (12%) after gastroscopy. In 18 (27%) cases, we considered malpractice to have been probable, due to lack of informed consent in four, delayed treatment of complications in six, substandard sedation in five, misdiagnosis in two and substandard practice in one, which would justify the complaints. Of the 48 cases we considered not to have involved malpractice, a guilty verdict was secured in one and an out-of-court settlement was reached in six with regard to the disproportionate and permanent harm experienced by the patients. Among the 66 claims, an out-of-court settlement was reached with the complainant on 19 occasions (28.7%) and a civil or penal trial was held in 39 (59%), resulting in a guilty verdict in only 10% of cases. In eight cases (15.3%), the complainant took no further action after receiving the response of the Professional Responsibility Section. The number of complaints progressively increased over the study period. There were a greater number of complaints in private clinics than in public hospitals. Endoscopists with more than one complaint were more frequently found guilty or reached an out-of-court settlement than those with only one complaint against them (100% versus 28%). Analysis of complaints of alleged malpractice is useful to identify areas requiring improved patients safety and to reduce the number of these complaints.
authors.affiliation: Unitat d'Estudis Acadèmics, Col·legi de Metges de Barcelona, Servei de Responsabilitat Profesional, Consell de Col·legis de Metges de Catalunya, Barcelona, España. bruguera@clinic.ub.es
authors.forename: Miquel
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Bruguera
authors.forename: Mercè
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Viger
authors.forename: Roger
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Bruguera
authors.forename: Josep
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Benet
authors.forename: Josep
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Arimany
mesh_terms: D002760:Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde / Q000009:adverse effects; D003113:Colonoscopy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D035881:Compensation and Redress / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003951:Diagnostic Errors / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D016099:Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D004939:Esophageal Perforation / Q000209:etiology; D006471:Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage / Q000209:etiology; D005773:Gastroscopy / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D007239:Infections / Q000209:etiology; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D007416:Intestinal Perforation / Q000209:etiology; D008318:Malpractice / Q000706:statistics & numerical data* / Q000639:trends; D013030:Spain